Quoting Eric Engelhard (eric_cl@pacbell.net):
> No, not obvious at all. The value of that variable DOES matter:
I am sorry to hear about your category confusion.
(I said "matter, -=in the context under discussion=-.")
> I will not speak for your group unless you $foo.
>
> $foo = feed me : not unusual
> $foo = feed me peeled grapes : hmmm...
> $foo = peel each grape and feed them to me by hand as I lounge on your
> naked wife : offensive, presumptuous, I'm getting my gun
The context under discussion included "involving conditions that were
not inherently acts of war, indecent proposals, incitements to riot, et
alii". Stallman said to SIGLINUX, in effect, "I'm willing to speak to
groups named GNU*. Yours isn't named GNU*. If you name it GNU*, I'll
be willing to speak to it."
You claim that's "offensive" . I say that statement is wacked.
We are seeing here the juvenile aspect of American culture: People
decide they don't like some aspects of a public figure, and respond by
second-guessing his motives, caviling about his personal affairs, and
attempting to weasel-word personal criticisms into discussions of more
significant public issues. Almost invariably, behind the guy's back.
This got old, a long time ago -- without regard to who the target du
jour is. It's irrelevant, disreputable, self-indulgent, and childish.
Frankly, the open-source / free-software community knows better.
> In advance?
Of coming or agreeing to come. Yes.
And you failed to answer my question of how it could _possibly_ be
"presumpuous" for Stallman to say under what conditions he's willing to
spend his free time talking to people in Texas. And we're not talkin'
naked wives, here.
Seriously, now, have you sat back and _listened_ to yourself, saying
this stuff?
--
Cheers, "That article and its poster have been cancelled."
Rick Moen -- David B. O'Donnel, sysadmin for America Online
rick@linuxmafia.com
_______________________________________________
vox mailing list
vox@lists.lugod.org
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox